ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL
EXCISE
GAZETTED
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President: Address for communication:
Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh 240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001
(U.P.)
Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha
(East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi
(North); B. Pavan K. Reddy, M. Jegannathan (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J.
Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra
(East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava
(North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore, Ashutosh Nivsarkar
(Central) Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising
Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide
letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 32/AIB/T/19
Dt.
05.02.19
To,
Sh.
Pranab Kumar Das,
Chairman,
CBIC,
North
Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Transfers & postings of
promotee Asstt. Commissioners.
Sir,
Kindly refer to the requests
including letter Ref. No. 174/AIB/T/18 Dt. 09.07.18 and 218/AIB/T/18 Dt. 20.08.18
of the Association.
2. Further, the following
submissions are made with due regards for the due redressal:
(i) The officers are very much demoralised due to non-return to their
parent places which will affect their efficiency.
(ii) Whereas many promoted Asstt. Commissioners with more than 3 years of service have been
allowed to
continue at the
existing station/zone (which is really a
very good thing), many of
the officers retiring
within 3 years have not been brought to their requested stations. The policy says that the officers, who have 3
or less years of service left, shall be posted to the
station/region of their choice.
(iii) Genuine compassionate grounds
including medical ones of self as well as family members may kindly be given
due consideration.
(iv)
The policy followed in 2017 & 2018 is totally different from the policy
followed in 2014. The policy of 2014 may
kindly be followed for transfer of these officers.
(v)
The postings/transfers to Directorates may kindly be made based on policy
instead of recommendations to make the process transparent and impartial.
(vi)
The policy says about the change of station whereas the zones of these officers
have been changed. Accordingly, only the station may kindly be changed within
their parent zone, if required.
3. It is also worth to mention that
these officers have been promoted against the temporary posts of the Asstt.
Commissioner with the clause of “no
further promotion” and also not being included in the recruitment rules.
The officers didn’t get the benefit of even a single paisa on being promoted
against these posts at the fag end because of already working in the same pay
scale. Many of them rather forced to get less emoluments on account of being
transferred to the cities with less HRA. Due to this reason, a good number of the
officers preferred to forgo the promotion against these posts and many are
forced to plan to be voluntarily retired.
4. It is also worth to submit that
the most of them are suffering from age related diseases/complications. They
have also to fulfill their family obligations relating to their ailing parents
and also relating to their children including their marriages particularly
marriages of the daughters. At this juncture, these officers are not in the
position to shift their families with them. Having double establishments also
require hefty expenses.
5. In view of the above, it is
requested to kindly consider their transfer requests with due sympathy and also
bring back all officers (particularly having less than three years of service)
to their parent/requested places for the sake of justice.
Thanking you,
Yours
sincerely,
(RAVI
MALIK),
Secretary General.
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President: Address for communication:
Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh 240, Razapur,
Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)
Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha
(East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi
(North); B. Pavan K. Reddy, M. Jegannathan (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J.
Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra
(East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava (North);
M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore, Ashutosh Nivsarkar
(Central) Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising
Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide
letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 34/AIB/L/19
Dt.
05.02.19
REMINDER
To,
Sh. Pranab Kumar Das,
Chairman, CBIC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Implementation of the legal verdicts/settled issues.
Sir,
Kindly
refer to the letters Ref. No. 113/AIB/G/17Dt. 28.09.17,120/AIB/G/17 Dt.
11.10.17, 46/AIB/V/18 Dt. 19.02.18, 269/AIB/L/18 Dt. 11.10.18 etc. of the
Association.
2.
Your kind attention is also invited to the to the verdict given by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in SLP No. 77457/2017 against the order Dt. 23.03.17 given by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP No. 2634/2017 in which the Apex Court said, “Once
the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the
part of the Government of India to issue a circular so that it will save the
time of the court and the Administrative Departments apart from avoiding
unnecessary and avoidable expenditure.” The Hon’ble Court further directed the
Government of India to immediately look into the matter and issue appropriate
orders so that people need not unnecessarily travel either to the Tribunal or
the High Court or the Supreme Court.
3. It is further submitted that the
officers have some legitimate expectations from your goodself which include the
implementation of the settled issues and reduction in unwarranted litigations &
appeals in the cases relating to the service matters. It is worth to mention in
this regard that several appeals pertaining to revenue have been withdrawn from
CESTAT and High Courts as per the New Litigation Policy. But no such initiative
has been taken for service matters and the officers are suffering because of
apathy of the administration. The service matters being unresolved, the
litigations on the service matters are on regular increase bearing high cost of
government time and expenditure in unwarranted manner.
4.
No need to say that the Hon’ble Prime Minister also emphasized on reduction of
litigations in the Rajasva Gyan Sangam as evident from the letter
DO.No.26/CH/(EC)/2017 Dt. 08.09.17 of the Chairman of CBIC. Also despite
of the CBIC letters F.No.A-60011/24/2015-Ad.IIB Dt. 21.06.16 and
F.No.C-18012/6/2013-Ad.IIB Dt.09.05.16 to minimise the court cases in service
matters, the officers are forced to file court cases and contempt petitions on
various issues. Not only it, it is very unfortunate that the field formations
are being asked to defend the court cases vide CBIC letter F. No.
A-23011/93/2018-Ad.IIA Dt. 15.01.19 quoting CAT judgements and ignoring the
judgements of higher courts and even ignoring the accepted orders of the
courts.
5.
The appeals are being filed against the orders of CAT/High Court to suffer the
officers endlessly. Even the issues settled at the level of the Apex Court are
not being implemented. The officers are forced to go to the CAT/High Court even
in same matters which have already been finalized/settled by the Hon’ble Higher
Courts/Apex Court. The verdicts, in which no appeal has been made, are also not
being implemented. The employees are forced to go to the legal courts even in
the matters which can be settled administratively very easily. If the issues
are to be settled by the legal courts only, there seems no use of any
administrative machinery. The benefit of court verdicts even in the settled
issues is being given only to the petitioners/applicants instead of implementing
in rem.
6.
There are so many verdicts of the various courts which are unimplemented in
CBIC despite of being settled finally. A few burning examples are as below-
i)
Order given on 24.02.95 in OA No.
541/1994 by the Hon’ble CAT of Jabalpur regarding payment of arrears of pay.
The issue is already a settled one because no appeal was made against this
order. But the order is still unimplemented despite of the repeated requests of
the Association.
ii)
Order given on 06.09.10 in WP No. 13225/2010 by
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Subramanium case against which not only the
SLP(C) No. 029382/2011 filed by the CBIC was dismissed on 10.10.17 but the
review petition has also been dismissed on 23.08.18. The order is being implemented in persona instead in rem
despite of being a settled issue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
iii)
Order given on 08.12.14 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 19024/ 2014 in
Chandrasekaran case against which issue (not to offset time scale granted prior
to 01.09.08 with MACP upgradation and GP of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 & PB3 being
one & same thing) the SLP of the Department of Revenue has also been
dismissed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balakrisnan case (WP 11535/2014 in
Madras High Court). Thus, para 8.1 of MACP Scheme amounts to be scrapped.
iv) Order given on 01.03.17 in OA No. 2323/2012 by the Hon’ble CAT of
Delhi regarding parity in promotions to our officers with intra-organisational
counterparts. No appeal has been made
in this case.
v) Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7278 of 2011 filed by the CBIC was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.05.11 in Ashok Kumar
case
involving the issue of stepping-up of pay, if juniors are getting more pay than
seniors on account of ACP/MACP upgradation. General implementation of this issue
is also awaited even after being settled at the level of Apex Court.
vi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 7467/2013 filed by the
Government against the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Chandigarh in CWP
No. 19387/2011 has already confirmed the order dated 31.05.11 of
Chandigarh CAT for grant of MACP upgradation in the promotional hierarchy. The
Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 being a new pay slab and not being existed in
the promotional hierarchy, the para 8.1 of the MACP instructions is also automatically
amounts to be scrapped based on the said verdict of the Apex Court.
vii) Regarding the offsetting of time
scale with the MACP upgradation, the verdict given by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi on 20.12.17 in the W.P.(C) No. 9357/2016 upholds
that non-functional financial upgradation (time scale) is not MACP upgradation
on account of being integral part of the pay. Thus, it can no way be treated as
MACP upgradation. The order of the Hon’ble High Court has already been
implemented vide office order No. 190/E-IV/Estt/DHC Dt. 23.02.18 of Delhi High
Court without preferring any appeal in it. Thus, no need to say that the matter
has been finalized and settled.
viii) In the case of U.O.I. Vs. Delhi Nurses
Union (Regd.) W.P. (C) 5146 / 2012 also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
vide its judgement dated 24.08.12 held the same and granted the next higher
Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- after the time scale to the employees. The order of the
High Court was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the
Appeal of Union of India on 04.03.13 in SLP(C) No. 010607/2013. Thus, the above
Order dated 24.08.12 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi also attained finality
after the dismissal of SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
ix) In Subramanium case also, it
has been established that 4 years time-scale/NFSG and ACP/MACP upgradation are
altogether different. If time scale was to be counted as one MACP upgradation,
it would have been granted after 10 years of service instead of 4 years. By the
finalization of the issue at the level of the Apex Court, the time scale can
never be treated as one MACP upgradation.
7. Your kind attention is also invited to the orders of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. & Ors. V. K. Kapoor & Anr. JT 2007 (12)
439, Inderpal Singh Yadav & Ors., State of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trymbak
Choudhary by order dated 20.02.2007, Dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the matter of State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors etc.
mandating to give the benefit of court verdict to all equally placed persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment Dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the matter of
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors held as
under:
“Normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount
to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more
emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be
treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the
Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.”
8.
It is reiterated that the officers are forced to go to the CAT/High Court even
in the same matters which have already been finalized/settled by the Hon’ble
Higher Courts/Apex Court. No need to say that the verdicts finalized/settled by
the Apex Court are always to be treated as the Law of Land. The verdicts, in
which no appeal has been made, are also not being implemented.
9.
Further, your kind attention is invited to the order Dt. 27.09.18 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 11277/2016 taking serious note
against the CBIC letter Dt. 05.09.07. This letter says, “in cases where the
Court orders are adverse to the interest of the department/Government, such
orders should not be implemented without clearance of the Board”. The Hon’ble
High Court took strong exception to this letter and was prima facie of the
opinion that this letter invites contempt of Court. However, at the request of
the ASG, the Hon’ble Court refrained from passing further orders and offered an
opportunity to the CBIC to withdraw the letter. Thus, it is very clear that any government department is never above
the Hon’ble Court and it is contemptuous not to follow the court orders.
10.
In view of the above, it is requested to kindly-
i)
redress the genuine grievances of the employees administratively without
forcing them to go to the legal courts,
ii)
implement all court orders in true spirit,
iii)
issue circulars to implement the settled issue in rem,
iv)
withdraw the appeals from High Court and Supreme Court in service matters as
has been done in appeals pertaining to Revenue and
v)
not to challenge the verdicts on service matters in higher courts.
By this, not only the hard earned money,
energy and time of the officers will be saved to be utilized in positive manner
for Nation building and service of the people but it will also save the
litigation cost incurred by the Govt. as well as precious time of the administrative
machinery.
Thanking
you,
Yours sincerely,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy
with the request for necessary action to:
1)
The Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2)
The Secretary, DOPT, North Block, New Delhi.
3)
Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.
4)
The Secretary, Ministry of Law, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
